Carolyn Parrish

[Municipal Grants Act, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-10, the payments in lieu of taxes act. I am speaking on behalf of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services in support of this important legislation which will go a long way toward strengthening the relationship between the federal government and municipalities across Canada. As a former municipal politician, it is a real pleasure for me to speak to this bill in the House.

Before I address the legislation I would like to congratulate the minister for his dedicated and constructive approach to this issue. His efforts to improve the fairness, equity and predictability of federal payments in lieu of taxes are truly commendable. In particular, I underline the minister's decision to directly involve local officials in developing these changes to the Municipal Grants Act and program. An obvious sensitivity to the opinions of municipal politicians by the minister is reflective of his own years in municipal politics.

In his speech to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in June of 1998, the minister made it clear that municipal input was absolutely essential if we were to find the best possible structure for municipal payments in lieu of taxes. He also made a commitment at that time to hear the voices of those who represent Canadians at the municipal level.

Throughout the summer of 1998 the minister presided over 11 round table discussions in major centres from coast to coast to obtain firsthand views on the municipal grants program and to gather advice on how to make it work better for local communities and citizens. These meetings gave mayors, municipal officials and appraisal professionals the opportunity to have a direct say in modernizing Canada's payment in lieu of taxes system.

I know for a fact that the minister's round tables were greatly appreciated by municipal officials. His face to face meetings were a gesture of solidarity between the two levels of government, a sign of respect and a clear recognition of the challenging work undertaken by municipal governments.

The minister's undertaking and the enthusiastic participation of municipal officials demonstrate that much can be achieved through dialogue and co-operation. Indeed, the minister's consultation tour has led directly to some important changes in the way the renamed and reformed municipal payments program will be managed.

Two examples come to mind. First, the minister has undertaken to establish a municipal payments program advisory council of stakeholder representatives to give advice on administrative and policy issues relating to the management of the program. This advisory council will carry on the constructive dialogue initiated by the round table consultations.

As we learned during those discussions, issues that arise must not be be allowed to simmer for years until they begin to adversely affect relations between governments, as has happened in the past. They must be dealt with expeditiously and the advisory council will play an important role in this regard.

The second ministerial initiative is the decision to engage national professional appraisal associations to draft best practices for unique types of properties. As the minister has noted, problems often arise when federal and municipal appraisers cannot agree on the value of certain types of federal properties such as penitentiaries and airports. There are simply no equivalent assets in the private sector against which these properties can be compared.

By developing best practices through a co-operative process involving municipal and federal stakeholders the government will ensure consistency in the treatment of these properties across Canada. We will also avoid unnecessary and acrimonious disagreements with municipal officials and improve the predictability of payments to municipalities. These administrative issues can be addressed without legislation; however, some of the changes included in the package proposed by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services do require amendments to the Municipal Grants Act, which is the purpose of Bill C-10.

During their meetings with the minister, municipal officials made it clear that the Government of Canada must behave in a manner similar to other property owners. This is what Bill C-10 aims to achieve. The underlying objective of the proposed legislation is to make federal payments in lieu of taxes as much like the taxes levied against private landowners as is possible, while still recognizing the government's exemption from local taxation under the Constitution Act, 1867.

Complicating this balancing act is the need to account for the uniqueness of certain types of federal properties, as I mentioned a moment ago.

The way the government has pursued these objectives is by strengthening the principles of fairness and equity that have guided the municipal grants program since its inception some 50 years ago. Let me give the House some examples.

Bill C-10 will require the federal government to pay a supplementary amount equivalent to interest when payments in lieu of taxes are unreasonably delayed. It will make the disputes resolution process more accessible to municipal governments and make the objectivity of the disputes advisory committee more apparent.

Bill C-10 will empower the minister to make payments in lieu of taxes on tenanted federal property when these tenants default on their tax obligations. Under the current regime municipal governments often have little recourse when a tenant in a federal property defaults on taxes.

The proposed legislation will also remove limitations on payments in lieu of taxes to first nations governments. It will change the reference in the legislation from the word “grants” to the word “payments” in lieu of taxes. This change will reflect the fact that the government receives valuable direct and indirect services from local governments for its payments in lieu of taxes.

Bill C-10 will expand the definition of federal property contained in the legislation to put the government on a more level playing field with taxable property owners.

In his speech to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities the minister also indicated that a primary goal of the consultation and reform exercise would be to improve the predictability of payments in lieu of taxes. I might add on a personal note, as a former school board chair, that knowing how much money we could budget for each year was a very important issue with which we had great trouble.

Again, several measures in Bill C-10 are designed to achieve this goal. For example, the government has undertaken to make payments according to the municipally established schedule, assuming information from assessment and taxation authorities is received on a timely basis, equivalent to that accorded other taxpayers. As mentioned earlier, the government will pay supplementary amounts equivalent to interest when these payments are delayed.

The government will also work with assessment authorities to attempt to finalize federal property values prior to the close of the assessment roll. This will reduce the number of disputes and improve predictability for municipalities when they set their tax rates and when they set their budgets.

The government will be working with tax appraisal professionals to arrive at an acceptable and balanced means of valuing certain types of property. The government will also clarify the process to be followed when a taxing authority is unwilling or unable to provide a service to federal property which it customarily provides to taxable property.

This is the first comprehensive review of the municipal payments program in 20 years.

Given this fact, I am pleased to inform hon. members that these proposed changes will have a minimal impact on the cost of the program. In fact, the cost increase will amount to less than 1% of a $400 million program, a total of about $1.7 additional millions, which will be distributed among departments.

As elected representatives, we are all mindful of the need to control the cost of government. However, I believe the movement of the federal government toward a more equitable position in relation to taxable property owners will provide more protection from large increases in costs by aligning the government with the common interests of the taxable community.

Let me reiterate that Bill C-10 strengthens the fairness, equity and predictability of federal payments in lieu of taxes. It achieves a balance between ensuring that Canada pays its fair share of the cost of municipal services while protecting the broader interests of all Canadian taxpayers. It deserves the support of hon. members on both sides of the House and I would ask them to join me in supporting the bill.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I hope I am not misinterpreting the member for Charlevoix. My impression is that he is willing to relegate Canadian Airlines to be the little local server, which would provide a lot of nasty competition to very successful small airlines which are out there right now, and that he is willing to allow Air Canada to continue to be the international carrier.

My perception of what has been going on between Air Canada and Canadian Airlines for a long time is that it is like the big brother and the little brother fighting each other, but they are not prepared to take on the bully from across the road. I think our real competition lies offshore and that international airlines from other countries are taking a lot of the lifeblood out of this country.

No, I do not agree with the member's position.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to my friend from Calgary East. I too read the recommendations and found that what was lacking was practicality. The Competition Bureau suggested that we could bring in all kinds of new airlines. It did not really matter who owned them, we could raise the ownership portions to astronomical heights.

What has to be understood, which the minister understands, is that this country was originally connected by railroads. Now its lifeblood is being pumped through the airlines. The heart of the country and its regions are being fed through the airlines.

It would be a gross miscarriage of justice if we lost some control over Canadian ownership and some control over the direction this new mega airline will go in. It would be a very sad situation if we, as parliamentarians, stood back and let the market forces take over. We have to understand that some of us really believe this will keep the country together. It is important to control it to a certain extent and to monitor it so that it is the best airline it can be and one which will continue to make Canada proud.

[Supply, October 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to share my time with my colleague the member for Mississauga West.

I rise to speak against the motion raised by the Bloc today. In his policy framework for airline restructuring in Canada, the Minister of Transport indicated on October 26 that the government was prepared to consider increasing the 10% limit to a new level to be decided following input from parliamentarians, only if such a measure contributes to a healthy Canadian airline industry.

The importance of a healthy airline industry in Canada cannot be overstated. Canada's airlines provide employment to thousands of skilled workers and are important contributors to our economy. In a country as large as Canada, they help support the very fabric of our society by connecting communities separated by hundreds, sometimes thousands, of kilometres.

As international trade and travel increase, our airlines provide Canada with critical links to the rest of the world. Canada needs a healthy airline industry to continue to enjoy these benefits and to create even greater benefits.

As my hon. colleagues are aware, the government has been very closely monitoring developments in the industry. It has assessed the implications of a major restructuring in order to form its policy framework.

The Government of Canada is committed to protecting the public interest in issues such as pricing, service to small communities and the rights and concerns of airline employees. I and my caucus colleagues have been made intimately, sometimes forcefully, aware of the concerns of the employees of both Canadian Airlines and Air Canada.

As the member of parliament for Mississauga Centre, I represent a riding that is home to hundreds, sometimes it feels like thousands, of airline employees. It is the employees of both airlines as well as the Canadian traveller that I remain most concerned about.

Travellers are justifiably concerned about airfares. Competition encourages lower airfares and increases the affordability of air travel. Currently almost 90% of air travel within Canada is on discounted fares. Seat sales allow families in Vancouver to visit relatives in Montreal. They allow small business people on restricted budgets to travel more easily. They encourage tourism.

It is reasonable to be concerned that a major restructuring of the Canadian airline industry could lead to higher airfares for all consumers. The government is very much aware of these concerns and the importance of affordable air travel to all Canadians.

As stated in the policy framework for airline restructuring in Canada, clearly the best way to promote affordable air travel is to have an air industry that remains healthy as well as competitive. It is competition rather than government intervention that will be most effective in moderating airfares in the long run. However, we must consider that competition may not exert sufficient control on prices in all circumstances. It is for this reason that competition concerns have been addressed at such length by our government.

The government already has tools at its disposal to address pricing concerns, including section 66 of the Canada Transportation Act which allows the Canadian Transportation Agency to act on complaints regarding basic fares on monopoly routes. As the Minister of Transport has stated, the government will go further and assess whether these provisions should be broadened to address market dominance.

As well, the government will require commitments on pricing from the dominant carrier during any restructuring process. The government will consider adding relevant conditions to its approval of any restructuring. The government will not tolerate any price gouging of Canadian consumers.

The importance of air travel to small communities is also a very serious concern. Our airlines help support the fabric of our nation by providing crucial air service to hundreds of domestic destinations, many of them accessible only by air.

Small communities rely on air services often more than large communities. Airlines provide links to larger markets, help attract investments and provide an indispensable lifeline to the rest of Canada.

As my hon. colleagues can appreciate, a major restructuring of the airline industry could lead to a rationalization of some air services. In this regard the public, consumer representatives and northern residents have expressed their concern that air services to smaller communities could decrease or even disappear. As set out in the government's policy framework, the key to addressing this issue is to ensure that barriers to entry and to growth in the market of small regional airlines are reduced to the greatest extent possible and that there are protections from possible predatory behaviour on the part of a dominant carrier.

History has demonstrated that where there is a demand there will be entrepreneurs willing to provide service, even in small markets. There must be an environment that will allow competition to exist. With this in mind our government has indicated that it will work to ensure that the necessary conditions for attracting competition are in place.

I would like my hon. colleagues to note that the Canada Transportation Act already requires the last and second last carrier serving any community to give notice of their intention to stop service so that there will be adequate lead time for any other carrier to prepare to offer replacement service. These sections will be reviewed to determine if they remain adequate.

In addition, the government has stated that it will require commitments on service to small communities from the dominant carrier during the restructuring process and will consider adding more conditions before restructuring is approved.

Lastly, I would like to address concerns regarding employment. The Canadian airline industry employs thousands of skilled workers directly and indirectly. These employees have worked diligently. Many of them have made significant sacrifices to ensure the success of their companies. They have endured economic downturns and have witnessed corporate downsizing. They have agreed to pay freezes and to pay cuts. They are important contributors to the Canadian economy. I believe they merit the consideration of our government in any airline restructuring.

The government has already consulted various groups on the issue. Labour leaders have expressed the concern that employment levels may be substantially affected by a restructuring of the airline industry. They want to ensure that job impacts and dislocations are minimized and that any employment adjustments are handled exclusively through normal retirement, attrition and voluntary separation packages.

Airline employees are very concerned that airline consolidation will cost them their jobs. They fear forced relocation and layoffs. It is for this reason that the government will insist that employees be treated fairly and will require commitments from a dominant carrier to this effect. The government will encourage labour management discussions with a view to reaching an agreement which is satisfactory to all.

The government believes that Canadian consumers want and deserve the benefits of competition, that small communities require air service and that airline employees deserve to be treated fairly. At the same time the government believes that these objectives are consistent with a healthy, Canadian controlled airline industry.

If my hon. colleagues believe that these are laudable goals, then they should agree that we must be prepared to take the necessary steps to manage a major restructuring of the Canadian airline industry. I call on my hon. colleagues to support the government initiatives presented by the Minister of Transport on October 26, including a provision for the government to consider increasing the 10% limit on individual ownership of Air Canada's voting shares.

The Minister of Transport has been very clear on his willingness to consider a legislative change right from the beginning. One has to look no further than the minister's news release of August 13, 1999, in which he said:

The Government of Canada will also consider what further action might be required, including the possibility of introducing legislation to facilitate the implementation of an acceptable proposal and making any necessary changes to the policy and regulatory framework governing airlines.

Clearly the government has stated its openness to legislative change from the day the use of section 47 was announced, which was August 13.

This issue will only be decided following input from parliamentarians and then only if such a measure contributes to achieving a healthy, Canadian controlled airline industry.

I will repeat this for the sake of all here. The government has stated that a change to the 10% limit will only be considered if it will contribute to achieving a healthy, Canadian controlled airline industry.

To make a decision prior to proper consultation, as is effectively proposed by the hon. member's motion, would not only deprive the government of the benefits of the advice of the parliamentary standing committees, it would also be unfair to the proponents of the private sector proposals that are seen to be addressed by shareholders.

For this reason, I oppose the motion. I also appreciate, as my colleague did, the opportunity to state my position in the House. Perhaps it will relieve me of the millions of phone calls I have been getting.

[Organ Donation, October 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will surprise many to learn that Canada has one of the lowest organ donations rates in the world.

Last spring the Minister of Health asked the Standing Committee on Health to examine this very important issue and to make recommendations about ways to improve Canada's regretful donation rates.

The committee tabled its report in April and I am pleased to inform the House that the Minister of Health tabled the government's response to that report with the clerk earlier today.

I am also pleased to note that when Canada's health ministers met last month in Charlottetown they agreed to establish a council on organ and tissue donation and transplantation in Canada. This will give Canada a co-ordinated, comprehensive and integrated donation and transplantation strategy across the country. The council's business plan will be reviewed in November.

It is my hope that these efforts will go a long way to improving Canada's organ donation rate.

[National Housing Act, May 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the motions presented by my hon. colleagues from Cape Breton and Kelowna pertaining to Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.

My hon. colleague from Cape Breton has presented amendments to Bill C-66 that would reduce her own constituents' access to renovations and home ownership assistance programs. I can only presume she does fully understand the implications of her suggested amendments. On some of the comments she just made I would like to address a few at the end of my speech.

Few regions in the country have benefited more from the residential rehabilitation assistance program than Cape Breton has. Yet the member from the region is proposing amendments that would prevent CMHC from ensuring that this vital program is as responsive as possible to the needs of Cape Bretoners and to all Canadians. I do not understand her position.

As they stand, CMHC's renovation assistance programs are in a straitjacket. They need to be able to respond more effectively to the needs of the very Canadians for whom these programs are intended, low income Canadians who need to make repairs to their homes to bring them up to minimum health and safety standards.

Would the hon. member from Cape Breton deny this to her constituents? I would like to think not. Yet the changes she is proposing would do exactly that. They would seriously undermine the government's ability to modernize its provision of services to its clients.

The member from Cape Breton is proposing changes that would effectively entrench the administrative red tape that hampers the CMHC from offering improved forms of assistance that Canadians, and Cape Bretoners in particular, need and they need it now. They would also prevent CMHC from working co-operatively and effectively with the other provinces. Again, what would be the motivation behind such a proposal?

In the same fashion, the member's proposed changes would prevent the CMHC from introducing measures to make home ownership more affordable for all Canadians.

I must conclude that the member does not fully understand the consequences of her suggested changes. There would be consequences, serious consequences for many Canadians, Cape Bretoners included, who would not be able to gain access to decent, affordable, safe housing for themselves and for their families. The government has no intention of denying such important benefits to Canadians. Bill C-66 is intended to ensure that the CMHC has the ability to continue to provide renovation and home ownership assistance to Canadians who are in need.

I would also like to comment on the suggested changes to the bill which were made by my colleague from Kelowna, which he brought forward in committee. What the hon. member is proposing would impede the government's ability to create jobs for Canadians through export promotion. My hon. colleague has proposed that Bill C-66 be amended to restrict CMHC's ability to carry out its export promotion mandate.

I cannot agree with this amendment either because it would seriously jeopardize the government's job creation efforts. The expansion of CMHC's export promotion activities is a fundamental element of the government's ability to create jobs for Canadians in Canada. We all know that export plays a key role in the development of our economy. CMHC's export promotion role works to strengthen our economy.

The CMHC must have the mechanisms it needs to continue to help the Canadian housing industry to take advantage of international trade opportunities. Several members opposite have taken advantage of going on some of these missions and have seen how successful they have been.

Bill C-66, as presented by the government, will enable the CMHC to continue to lead the way in housing export trade promotion and to better promote Canadian housing products and services abroad. This activity will result in job opportunities for Canadians here and for our trade partners abroad. Canada's housing industry has excellent prospects of expanding its exports of housing systems, technologies, products and services, while contributing to the federal objectives of job creation and economic growth.

This legislation will ensure that Canadian entrepreneurs will be able to use the CMHC for marketing support for projects overseas and access CMHC's 55 years of expertise in the housing industry. The CMHC will also be able to help Canadians sell their expertise to foreign countries. This will open the door to further opportunities for Canadian entrepreneurs.

The CMHC has a good track record in helping the industry achieve success in export markets. Last September a group of over 30 companies, provincial governments and industry representatives travelled to Chile with the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who is also responsible for the CMHC, to take part in one of the biggest trade shows in South America. We expect that within one year following that mission these exporters will generate over $35 million in new business. This will have a major impact on job growth in Canada. I might add that the delegation to Chile also included the member for Kelowna, who now proposes to limit CMHC's ability to undertake such important export promotion functions such as organizing and leading trade missions to foreign countries. What are we to make of this?

The CMHC has also recently returned from a trade mission to Poland and is developing with the housing industry other trade missions to Korea, Germany, Japan and others later this year. Given the significant impact of export on the domestic economy it is obvious the CMHC must be able to continue to support the housing industry in its efforts to improve its export capabilities.

While I thank the hon. members for their interest in the bill, I believe that Bill C-66, as it stands, is the best possible solution to ensure that the Government of Canada, through the CMHC, has the ability to provide appropriate, essential renovation and home ownership assistance to Canadians, to generate economic growth and job creation in Canada, and to ensure that Canadians remain among the best housed people in the world.

I would also like to add that the whole discussion this afternoon seems to be revolving around homelessness. That is not the subject of this bill. This bill is about the renovation of the National Housing Act.

The other thing I find quite fascinating is that the CMHC has been in existence for 55 years. It has been there to help the Canadian public and it has a fabulous track record. I do not understand why members of the opposition assume that there is some sinister plan afoot in this bill to actually do some harm to Canadians.

I also find it interesting that the hon. member who spoke previously talked about accountability to citizens and then went forward to object to the board of directors having a reduced number of bureaucrats and more individuals from every walk of life in Canada.

Rent controls, which were also mentioned by the hon. member who spoke previously, are under provincial jurisdiction. If one reads the bill carefully, all interests that the CMHC has in partnerships with the private sector and provincial governments also give it the ability to supervise such things as rent increases.

I believe that the bill, as it stands, is in perfect shape. It is upgrading old legislation that has to come into the 21st century. It is here for the Canadian public. It is an excellent bill and it requires no amendment.

[National Housing Act, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House and the issues raised by the member for Kelowna concerning mortgage insurance in Bill C-66.

I would like to respond at the beginning by asserting that the government is against Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 proposed by the member opposite.

I would like to stress that Bill C-66 supports the Government of Canada's efforts to make government more efficient and provide better service to Canadians. The changes to the mortgage insurance and guarantee legislation put forth by the member for Kelowna would put at risk the benefits Canadian families gain from CMHC's work in housing finance and threaten chances of progress.

Through CMHC's mortgage insurance and mortgage backed securities program, the Government of Canada has important levers to promote housing affordability and choice, to ensure access to mortgage funds as well as competition and efficiency in housing finance, to protect the availability of adequate housing funding at low cost, and to contribute to the well-being of the housing sector in the national economy.

Mortgage loan insurance and mortgage backed securities have been important public policy tools of the Government of Canada, tools which have made it possible for millions of Canadians to realize their dream of owning a home, and this at no cost to the government.

The hon. member for Kelowna would have us throw away the benefits of bringing in more funds from the capital market by limiting mortgage backed securities and proposes uses for mortgage insurance that could stifle our country's ability to improve the availability and affordability of housing.

The new section 3 of the National Housing Act clearly sets out the mandate and limits of CMHC's functions in housing finance:

The purpose of this Act, in relation to financing for housing, is to promote housing affordability and choice, to facilitate access to, and competition and efficiency in the provision of, housing finance, to protect the availability of adequate funding for housing at low cost, and generally to contribute to the well-being of the housing sector in the national economy.

How much clearer can one get? Why would this government give CMHC the uninspired and limited means proposed by the member for Kelowna when its mandate is much more compelling and much more clear? Why would the House regulate CMHC's activities in the same way it oversees privately owned financial institutions when it can govern more directly with the input of Canadians?

The dream of owning a home is one shared by a great many Canadians. Unfortunately, many are unable to buy a house despite the fact they can afford monthly mortgage payments. The reason for this is that many families find it hard to save the money required for the down payment on a conventional loan.

Mortgage loan insurance has provided many Canadians with the opportunity to own their own home. In some cases it allowed them to buy sooner due to the lower down payment. In other cases it opened the door for people who would have otherwise never been able to buy a home.

I would like to give an idea of just how many Canadians depend on mortgage loan insurance in order to fulfil their dream of owning a home. In the past year CMHC has helped Canadians gain access to over 300,000 homes with the use of mortgage loan insurance, and this was done at no cost to the government.

The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that mortgage insurance is available to homebuyers in all regions of Canada. The proposed amendments would allow CMHC to operate its mortgage insurance program on a more commercial basis. This will ensure that CMHC is able to compete on an equal footing with any private mortgage insurer. This means that all mortgage insurers, both public and private, are subject to the same regulations.

By guaranteeing competition in this sector, we can ensure that Canadians are able to have access to the best possible price and a greater number of choices in home financing products. Besides helping Canadians to become homeowners, CMHC mortgage insurance has also been key to the health of the housing industry in Canada. By fully protecting lenders against default on the part of borrowers, mortgage insurance encourages investment in residential construction. As a result, CMHC plays a central role in creating numerous jobs in this key sector of our economy.

In recent years CMHC has been approached to support many innovative products. With the new National Housing Act, CMHC will be able to bring the benefits of some of these new types of home financing products to the marketplace.

By simplifying the National Housing Act, CMHC would have the flexibility to consider products such as insurance for a reverse equity mortgage to enable older homeowners to use the equity in their home to obtain funds while allowing them to continue to live where they have lived for a long time.

CMHC would also be able to consider such ideas as non-mortgage financing for remote areas where the land registry system does not facilitate mortgages, or financing arrangements on Indian reserves where restrictions exist on providing land as security for mortgages.

Any new products to give Canadians increased opportunities for housing choice and affordability would be developed after careful consideration of their potential success in the marketplace.

The failure to remain competitive could reduce CMHC to a residential insurer with riskier loans. This would jeopardize mortgage insurance, self-financing and create the need for public subsidies.

Passing this legislation would equip CMHC with the necessary financing tools required to continue to provide Canadians with the opportunity to own a house. Bill C-66 will also strengthen CMHC's capacity to accomplish its goal of contributing to the well-being of the housing sector and our nation's economy.

In summary, the new National Housing Act will improve the service CMHC provides to Canadians and support the housing industry. Why would the hon. member for Kelowna want to jeopardize the viability of CMHC's mortgage loan insurance? Mortgage loan insurance is a service that has made a difference to over three million Canadian families since 1954. With Bill C-66, we want to ensure that the benefits governments provided to past generations will continue to be available to Canada's future generations.

Canadians across the country will benefit because of Bill C-66. Consumers will benefit in the area of mortgage financing. The housing industry will benefit through increased promotions of Canadian products and services at home and abroad. Canadians in general will benefit from new jobs created by the housing industry and enhanced service from CMHC.

The mandate of the national housing act is clear: to promote affordability and choice in housing while facilitating access to financial sources and encouraging competition and efficiency in this area. The legislation will ensure that this mandate will continue to guide housing policy implementation and future policy development.

Since its creation more than 50 years ago, CMHC has been involved in every aspect of housing. Its contribution to helping house Canadians is unequalled.

I hope that the members of the committee will support Bill C-66 so that CMHC can continue to make its contribution to improving the quality of life for all Canadians. I appeal to the members of the whole House to vote against the amendments and vote for the bill in its current form.

[Hepatitis C, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has already indicated in the House, the government is very concerned about the hardships that many owners of British Columbia's moisture damaged condominiums are facing.

It is the responsibility of the provinces to establish building codes and of the municipalities to inspect and enforce these codes.

As the national housing agency CMHC has been working in co-operation with others involved in housing research, design, construction and regulation to determine what improvements need to be made to design and building practices to eliminate these moisture related problems for the future.

Earlier this year the Barrett commission report provided a wide range of recommendations on how to improve the situation for condominium owners. The report called for CMHC to double residential rehabilitation assistance program funding for British Columbia. The Government of Canada did this for fiscal year 1998-99. In addition to providing more RRAP funds, the Government of Canada has also offered $75 million in bridge financing for the reconstruction fund that was mentioned by the member opposite.

CMHC is also working toward solutions to resolve the issue through our National Housing Act mortgage loan insurance. Some home owners with moisture damaged units have NHA insured mortgages. These individuals may have access to a number of financial options. Applications will be assessed by the approved lenders and CMHC on a case by case basis.

In addition to assisting home owners who currently have an NHA insured loan, CMHC has negotiated with the British Columbia's home protection office to provide mortgage insurance for their provincial program.

I should point out that it is the position of the government that tax relief or a tax subsidy as suggested by the Barrett commission would not be an equitable option for all Canadians.

[Housing, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Affordability and Choice Today program, ACT, at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This program, which was recognized in 1998 by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, was selected as one of the top 100 global best practices in improving the living environment.

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services recently announced that 14 grants worth up to $20,000 each were awarded under the ACT program. Members should also note that the minister has extended the program for an additional three years. The ACT program helps improve affordability and choice in housing by finding innovative projects that demonstrate and encourage local level regulatory reform.

Once again, congratulations to CMHC and its partners in the ACT program, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Home Builders' Association and the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, April 22nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, again I would like to reiterate my position. Because the minister happens to be sitting here, I would like to draw in the EI plan as well as the pension plans. We must remember in the bad times the government paid and paid and topped it up and built up a deficit and a debt which the whole country paid for. When careful management has built these funds up, in the good times it is time these funds were paid back to all taxpayers of Canada.

As long as the pension payouts are fair we are not doing it at the expense of the recipients. We are doing it because it is the proper and appropriate thing to do at this time in the economy.